As already said, neitehr of them is gonna have any significant advantage over the otehr. Where the otehr has a stronger processor, it only has a built-in graphics controller when the otehr has a weaker processor and a better graphics system. On balance, they will be pretty much the same in terms of working experience...

Now, What computer would be faster for basically everything In After Effects, Premiere Pro, Flah, and all those programs, WHATS FASTER???

As said by others, neither. Even a severely handicapped elderly snail is way faster. Both systems are below minimum requirements, but maybe you can edit some very short (less than 10 minutes) SD DV material clips without effects if you are the patient type. Nothing more.

Okay Thanks everyone. okay, so I obviously not going to make any big big big movies, just a few shorter ones...at max 10-15 mins. If I upgraded my Windows to 8GB of ram, would that make a big difference?

As Harm stated, you'd still need a major hardware upgrade just to even run Premiere Pro to most people's satisfaction. No system with a dual-core CPU - not even a desktop - performs as fast as even a mediocre-performing quad-core CPU-based system. (For example, I got a dual-core i3-2100 system to achieve around 500 seconds total in the PPBM5 benchmark - but it took a GPU that costs significantly more money than the CPU, RAM and motherboard combined to achieve that result.) And since both of your laptops have only dual-core, low-clocked CPUs and lack any NVIDIA CUDA GPUs whatsoever, expect either system to perform at least 40 times slower than a fast i7 desktop Windows 7 PC.

So, in your case, given your current equipment, it would be more like "slower" and "slowest". In fact, the AMD Turion II can barely even run Premiere Pro at all since it performs slower than most of the Intel Core 2 Duo systems (both laptop and desktop).